Miss Nishi Shah

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Miss Nishi Shah

Teacher reference number: 3836078

Teacher's date of birth: 15 July 1989

Location teacher worked: London

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 July 2021

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with the Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Miss Nishi Shah formerly employed in London.

Miss Nishi Shah: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Nishi Shah Teacher ref number: 3836078 Teacher date of birth: 15 July 1989 TRA reference: 19097 Date of determination: 26 July 2021 Former employer: The Harefield Academy, Uxbridge Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 26 July 2021 to consider the case of Miss Nishi Shah (“Miss Shah”). The panel members were Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Maxine Cole (lay panellist) and Duncan Tilley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Miss Shah that the allegations be considered without a hearing. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Miss Shah or her representative. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 May 2021. The panel noted that one of the original allegations was removed from consideration. In an email dated 6 July 2021, the TRA confirmed their agreement to the removal of the original allegation 3a concerning Miss Shah’s alleged concealment of her actions by informing the deputy headteacher that she had been told confidential information regarding the post of head of year by staff member A when in fact she obtained this information by other means. The panel accepted that this allegation had been removed from the TRA’s case and therefore did not consider it further. Therefore, the allegations that were considered at the meeting were as follows: It was alleged that Miss Shah was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst seeking employment at the school and/or whilst employed as an unqualified teacher at The Harefield Academy; 1. She stated in her employment application that she had obtained a degree at a higher level than she had in fact achieved; 2. She engaged in inappropriate use of school data and/or equipment on one or more occasions between May 2018 and July 2019, including by; a) accessing the school network and/or email accounts of one or more members of staff without permission; b) sending emails from the email account of Staff Member X and/or Staff Member Z without permission; 3. She sought to conceal her actions as may be found proven at allegations 2a and 2b, including by; a) informing the Academy that she had not seen emails that had been sent from the email account of Staff Member X and/or Staff Member Z, when in fact she had accessed their email accounts and sent the emails; b) deleting emails from her email account that she had sent to herself using the email account of Staff Member X; 4. Her conduct as may be found proven at 1 and/or 3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest; 5. Her conduct as may be found proven at 2 above lacked integrity. Miss Shah admitted the facts of all of the above allegations. Miss Shah admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response, statement of agreed facts, request for the case to be considered by way of a meeting and presenting officer representations – pages 5 to 193d Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 195 to 493 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 495 to 535 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Miss Shah on 17 April 2021. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA and Miss Shah agreed for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Miss Shah worked as an unqualified inclusion teacher at The Harefield Academy (the “Academy”). Miss Shah was asked to retrospectively complete an application form for her role as an unqualified inclusion teacher. Miss Shah stated in her application form that she had received an upper second-class honours degree certificate. Miss Shah confirmed that she had misplaced her degree certificate and the Academy followed up with the awarding university. The university confirmed to the Academy that Miss Shah had been 6 awarded a third-class honours degree. The Academy undertook an investigation into this issue and a disciplinary hearing was held on 30 January 2019. The panel issued a sanction of a final written warning to be kept on Miss Shah’s file for a period of 12 months from the date of the hearing. During 2019, the deputy headteacher of the Academy became concerned through conversations with members of staff that Miss Shah appeared to have access to information that was not in the public domain and would have only been accessible to middle leaders within the Academy. There was a concern that this information may have been accessed inappropriately and potentially used to influence conversations with staff, students or parents. An investigation was carried out by the Academy and a disciplinary hearing was held on 14 October 2019. On 17 October 2019, the Academy wrote to Miss Shah to confirm that her employment would be terminated without notice. Miss Shah appealed the decision, and the appeal hearing took place on 17 December 2019. On 20 December 2019, the Academy wrote to Miss Shah to confirm that the original decision to dismiss her was to be upheld. The panel considered at the outset whether the TRA had jurisdiction to dispense with the case. The panel needed to ensure that Miss Shah’s role as an unqualified teacher encompassed teaching work. Given Miss Shah’s professional responsibilities which included planning and delivery of the curriculum as well as assessing pupil progress, the panel was satisfied that she was performing a teaching role. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You stated in her employment application that you had obtained a degree at a higher level than you had in fact achieved; The panel considered Miss Shah’s admission to this allegation. Miss Shah acknowledged that she had completed an application form for the Academy on 30 October 2018. Miss Shah stated in the application that she had received a 2:1 (upper second-class honours degree). Miss Shah signed the declaration on the application form which stated: “I understand that false or misleading information on this form will disqualify me from appointment and if appointed, may result in disciplinary action which could lead to my dismissal. I declare that the information I have given is accurate and true.” 7 Miss Shah confirmed that she had misplaced her degree certificate and the Academy followed up with the awarding university. The university confirmed to the Academy that Miss Shah had been awarded a third-class honours degree. The panel found allegation 1 proved. 2. You engaged in inappropriate use of school data and/or equipment on one or more occasions between May 2018 and July 2019, including by; a) accessing the school network and/or email accounts of one or more members of staff without permission; The panel considered Miss Shah’s admission to this allegation. Miss Shah admitted that she accessed the Academy network and email account of Staff Member X without his or the Academy’s permission on multiple occasions. Miss Shah also admitted that she accessed the Academy network and email account of Staff Member Z without her or the Academy’s permission on multiple occasions. The panel found allegation 2a proved. 2. You engaged in inappropriate use of school data and/or equipment on one or more occasions between May 2018 and July 2019, including by; b) sending emails from the email account of Staff Member X and/or Staff Member Z without permission; The panel considered Miss Shah’s admission to this allegation. Miss Shah admitted that she engaged in inappropriate use of academy data and equipment between May 2018 and July 2019, by sending emails from the email account of Staff Member X and Staff Member Z without permission. The panel had sight of the emails that Miss Shah forwarded from the email accounts of Staff Member X and Staff Member Z, without their permission or the Academy’s permission. The panel found allegation 2b proved. 3. You sough